Wonderful piece man, makes me wish my family had a place like that, makes me want to buy a place like that for my child and future grandchildren if I'm ever fortunate enough. This is exactly the kind of writing we need on here.
Thank you. If you have a chance to snag some piece of property, you should seriously consider it. There’s something about an actual family PLACE you can pass down.
Beautiful little reflection, here. I visited New England for the first time two years ago, and was so enamored I went back before the year was up. We stayed in Manchester, NH, since that's where the friend we originally went to see was working at the time, but I ended up going to Maine and being quite literally dumbstruck by the beauty of the coast (the pictures you posted are so similar to the beach we went to that I think they might be the same one). There is something about the authenticity of the old that makes it so much more pleasing than much of the new. I think part of this, for me, is also that, being from Texas, where the vast majority of everything is was built in the past thirty to forty years and, even then, much of what was there before is carelessly and recklessly bulldozed away, I'd never seen so much old in my life. The most striking difference (and greatest loss) is the small, old towns littered across the New England countryside. In New England, they felt like places people actually lived, had lived, and had so much history in culture. Unfortunately, much of the Texas hinterland has pretty much been economically devastated - the economy has exploded, but most of that has taken place in large cities and the surrounding locales, leaving the rural areas to wither and die slow, miserable deaths of opiod addiction and increasing gang violence. There are exceptions, of course, with kitschy touritst traps, but for the most part, the average town outside of driving distance from one of the big four cities of Dallas/Fort Wroth, San Antonio, Austin, or Houston, don't feel like places that people live so much as places they used to, with a dilapidated, decrepit, moldering main street that's more empty than not, a gas station, and maybe a Dollar General, if they're lucky. Pretty much all economic opportunities are centered around that rough triangle of four cities in the east or one of the larger western cities (Lubbock, El Paso, Amarillo, etc.), which has resulted in a sort of internal brain drain where the most productive and brightest members of these rural communities have no choice but to relocate to a city or its suburbs, and the ones who lack the money or skills are left to wallow in the grinding poverty of these dead-end small towns. It's one of the many reasons the Texas economic boom of the 2000's may end up being more bane than boon before 2050 hits.
And I think that's the end result of this kind of "maximize profit at all costs" mindset. Morgoth of Morgoth's Review once likened it to playing a game of "Civilization" before, where one must strategize and utilize each tile to its maximum advantage - a farm here, a factory there, housing here, so on and so forth, with no room for anything that doesn't ultimately make money or offer some sort other currency that can ultimately win the game. After all, faith, science, and culture are all just different types of currency that can be used to dominate the enemy civilizations. But there's no room for anything that DOESN'T provide some kind of currency or utility. Fine in a game, not so much in real life. You can't put a price on things like leisure, natural beauty, spirituality, so on and so forth. When you bulldoze history or destroy a small town to make a few extra bucks, you're destroying more than you could ever buy back. But, hey - you said it yourself, we're basically machines in this day and age, dictated by algorithms and graphs, and so long as the red line goes up, who really cares? GDP is the only metric that matters!
Well, every part of the country is different, and being older doesn’t make a part better, but it is a different vibe. When I go to other parts of the US, it’s interesting to see areas that aren’t small and old and cramped. But it’s not the vibe for me.
I’m glad you liked New England! The beach we went to was York. Being from New Hampshire, I’m familiar Manchester. One of my best friends lived there for a while, and even after he moved he kept his drums in the practice space there we used for rehearsals. Manchester had gotten exponentially nicer the past 15 or so years; when I was growing up it had a reputation for being a rough town referred to as “Manch-Vegas.” But it’s becoming gentrified, which isn’t a bad thing.
Your video game analogy is spot-on. Imagine playing, say, SimCity, and not developing EVERYTHING. Funny how that mentality seeps into everyday life.
It's strange, because I was just thinking about this the other day. More specifically one wonderful piece of ephemera: smell. The kind of warm gentle must that hits you in every used book store, record shop, and other assorted antique dealers. I consider it a small blessing that some of my older Bantam paperbacks and used vinyl still carry a hint of that with them wherever we go. It's a lovely feeling.
Old book stores and record shops are the best. Somewhat related, my uncle ran a video shop in the 90s and into the early 2000s and it totally had that vibe. We miss a lot when everything is a megacorp franchise/box store. Corporations are NOT people and they make the people working for them think and act like machines. No sir, I don’t like it.
My grandparents lived by the coast in Norfolk (England) and I have some great memories of going there. They've passed away and the house has been sold - what was once a weekend cottage ended up going for silly money.
Going there has left me with a lasting love of crab fishing and going to the seaside in winter.
We think about it differently here, it's more an ever-present than a far off force. I grew up about as far inland as it's possible to be in England - about 60 miles (I think the maximum is 70 miles). Where I live now I can drive coast to coast in around 90 minutes. It's always the sea to British people, never the ocean.
You beat me to it, Samuel. That aspect of England is very important and I’m sure affects everyone. Being in New England, it’s possible to be over 100 miles from the sea if you’re in, say, western Massachusetts or northeastern Vermont or even parts of northern New Hampshire. But even where I grew up in central New Hampshire, the New Hampshire seacoast was about two hours away, and Maine only a little further. Similar to England, most New Englanders also have a relationship with the sea.
Now, if one lives in, say, Oklahoma, that is not the case.
"This philosophy underpins, for example, the doctrine of eminent domain, which is in the US Constitution."
"Article 5."
Not exactly. The Fifth Amendment (not Article 5, which is about amending the Constitution) includes the Takings Clause ("Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.") This clause was intended to provide superior protection for landowners compared to the situation that they had experienced under English rule.
At the time of America's founding, the practice of seizing private land for use by the government was already part of English Common Law for centuries, originating from feudal practices. Guidelines for it were even included in the Magna Carta. In the 13 Colonies, compensation for seized land was often provided, but sometimes wasn't if the land was unimproved.
From "The Evolution of Eminent Domain" by Bruce L. Benson:
"By the American Revolution, government’s power to take property was clearly well established, a remnant of feudalism in England. For the most part, it was customary for the government to pay compensation, a result of the long struggle to limit the English king’s power, so such payments were clearly expected. Compensation was not always paid, however. In at least some colonies, no payments were made if the land was unimproved—an acceptable practice given that land was so abundant that property owners could easily obtain replacements at very low costs."
The Fifth Amendment did not create new permissions for the government to seize property (something that had been the norm since feudal times), but rather mandated protections for landowners not to have property seized without just compensation as had sometimes happened in the Colonies under English rule.
The Takings Clause's statement "nor shall private property be taken FOR PUBLIC USE, without just compensation," reflects the intention that the government should only exercise its power of eminent domain when it serves a clear and legitimate public purpose. The Framers intended this for situations where taking private property was necessary for the common good, such as building roads, bridges, or public facilities. "Public use" was understood at the time to mean use by a government (local, state, or Federal) for use by the public, not a transfer of ownership to private entities or businesses.
The Framers did not envision a scenario where the government could seize property from one individual and transfer it to another individual or business for profit. Eminent domain as it exists today, in which such a thing can be done, is a later perversion of the original intent of the Takings Clause and stretches the definition of "public use" beyond the breaking point.
"Income must not only be made 24/7, the amount must be maximized or else you are failing in your moral duty to make the world a better place."
In my opinion, the most dramatic and damaging capitulation to this mentality was when the concept of a Sabbath stopped being treated as important. If you read 19th century literature such as Mark Twain, you will find ample references to the fact that many people used to take the whole "no work on Sunday" thing very seriously. Even well into the 20th century, most businesses were closed on Sunday and "blue laws" restricting various types of business and sales (especially but not limited to alcohol sales) were common. (A few of these laws still exist today in a few states, but not nearly to the extent that they once did.)
Nowadays, most businesses (especially of the retail variety) operate for seven days a week. It has gotten to the point that (at least where I live) for a person entering the workforce in a low-level job, it is difficult to get a job that doesn't require working for seven days a week.
Sure, many of the better jobs offer 5-day work weeks, but those are generally treated as a privilege one must earn through college degrees, years of experience in lower-status jobs, or both.
Even ignoring matters of religious scruples, non-stop work all week just isn't healthy or beneficial. That can be backed up by medical (and especially psychiatric) science. People need some time to unwind and recharge. Sure, it makes sense that some people like police and doctors might need to work every day because of the life-and-death importance of their jobs, but that should be considered a necessary exception (an "ox in the ditch", to use Biblical terminology) and a sacrifice in the line of extraordinary duties, rather than the norm.
In my experience, even religious, church-going people tend to just shrug off 7-day work weeks as just being "what needs to be done to provide for yourself these days", almost if 2 Thessalonians 3:10 has overruled the Fourth Commandment.
Interestingly, even a secular, far-left rag like Vox recognizes that sacrificing Sabbath-keeping on the altar of 24/7 commerce isn't a good thing. Some quotes from an article published by it:
___________________________________
"Blue laws are sometimes opposed on efficiency grounds: The service sector, we are assured, must be open on weekends, so that other workers can obtain those services. It’s true that essential services probably must remain open regardless of the day. But brunch is not as essential as the emergency room. Nobody dies if they can’t buy a flat-screen TV on Sunday.
More to the point, this logic implies that service-sector workers should be a permanent second class of workers: rather than simply providing services, service workers are defined as existing to serve higher-status workers. Economists call the work “service sector” because it doesn’t produce a physical commodity; but increasingly, “service sector” seems to be used to denote social class."
"The social choice to protect a single day of the week for society to collectively step back from work and commerce and spend some time together should be endorsed across the political spectrum (except, perhaps, among totalitarians and libertarians; the former due to a distaste for robust private assembly, the latter due to an overzealous desire for the universal commercialization of humanity).
And yet blue laws continue to fall by the wayside. They are inconvenient for a busy society. But their inconvenience is precisely why they must be defended, and defended as a matter of legal requirement. People need to have their rest defended from the constant encroachment of busyness, particularly at the hands of business."
Wonderful piece man, makes me wish my family had a place like that, makes me want to buy a place like that for my child and future grandchildren if I'm ever fortunate enough. This is exactly the kind of writing we need on here.
Thank you. If you have a chance to snag some piece of property, you should seriously consider it. There’s something about an actual family PLACE you can pass down.
Beautiful little reflection, here. I visited New England for the first time two years ago, and was so enamored I went back before the year was up. We stayed in Manchester, NH, since that's where the friend we originally went to see was working at the time, but I ended up going to Maine and being quite literally dumbstruck by the beauty of the coast (the pictures you posted are so similar to the beach we went to that I think they might be the same one). There is something about the authenticity of the old that makes it so much more pleasing than much of the new. I think part of this, for me, is also that, being from Texas, where the vast majority of everything is was built in the past thirty to forty years and, even then, much of what was there before is carelessly and recklessly bulldozed away, I'd never seen so much old in my life. The most striking difference (and greatest loss) is the small, old towns littered across the New England countryside. In New England, they felt like places people actually lived, had lived, and had so much history in culture. Unfortunately, much of the Texas hinterland has pretty much been economically devastated - the economy has exploded, but most of that has taken place in large cities and the surrounding locales, leaving the rural areas to wither and die slow, miserable deaths of opiod addiction and increasing gang violence. There are exceptions, of course, with kitschy touritst traps, but for the most part, the average town outside of driving distance from one of the big four cities of Dallas/Fort Wroth, San Antonio, Austin, or Houston, don't feel like places that people live so much as places they used to, with a dilapidated, decrepit, moldering main street that's more empty than not, a gas station, and maybe a Dollar General, if they're lucky. Pretty much all economic opportunities are centered around that rough triangle of four cities in the east or one of the larger western cities (Lubbock, El Paso, Amarillo, etc.), which has resulted in a sort of internal brain drain where the most productive and brightest members of these rural communities have no choice but to relocate to a city or its suburbs, and the ones who lack the money or skills are left to wallow in the grinding poverty of these dead-end small towns. It's one of the many reasons the Texas economic boom of the 2000's may end up being more bane than boon before 2050 hits.
And I think that's the end result of this kind of "maximize profit at all costs" mindset. Morgoth of Morgoth's Review once likened it to playing a game of "Civilization" before, where one must strategize and utilize each tile to its maximum advantage - a farm here, a factory there, housing here, so on and so forth, with no room for anything that doesn't ultimately make money or offer some sort other currency that can ultimately win the game. After all, faith, science, and culture are all just different types of currency that can be used to dominate the enemy civilizations. But there's no room for anything that DOESN'T provide some kind of currency or utility. Fine in a game, not so much in real life. You can't put a price on things like leisure, natural beauty, spirituality, so on and so forth. When you bulldoze history or destroy a small town to make a few extra bucks, you're destroying more than you could ever buy back. But, hey - you said it yourself, we're basically machines in this day and age, dictated by algorithms and graphs, and so long as the red line goes up, who really cares? GDP is the only metric that matters!
Well, every part of the country is different, and being older doesn’t make a part better, but it is a different vibe. When I go to other parts of the US, it’s interesting to see areas that aren’t small and old and cramped. But it’s not the vibe for me.
I’m glad you liked New England! The beach we went to was York. Being from New Hampshire, I’m familiar Manchester. One of my best friends lived there for a while, and even after he moved he kept his drums in the practice space there we used for rehearsals. Manchester had gotten exponentially nicer the past 15 or so years; when I was growing up it had a reputation for being a rough town referred to as “Manch-Vegas.” But it’s becoming gentrified, which isn’t a bad thing.
Your video game analogy is spot-on. Imagine playing, say, SimCity, and not developing EVERYTHING. Funny how that mentality seeps into everyday life.
It's strange, because I was just thinking about this the other day. More specifically one wonderful piece of ephemera: smell. The kind of warm gentle must that hits you in every used book store, record shop, and other assorted antique dealers. I consider it a small blessing that some of my older Bantam paperbacks and used vinyl still carry a hint of that with them wherever we go. It's a lovely feeling.
Old book stores and record shops are the best. Somewhat related, my uncle ran a video shop in the 90s and into the early 2000s and it totally had that vibe. We miss a lot when everything is a megacorp franchise/box store. Corporations are NOT people and they make the people working for them think and act like machines. No sir, I don’t like it.
My grandparents lived by the coast in Norfolk (England) and I have some great memories of going there. They've passed away and the house has been sold - what was once a weekend cottage ended up going for silly money.
Going there has left me with a lasting love of crab fishing and going to the seaside in winter.
Those are wonderful memories. There is something magical about the ocean.
We think about it differently here, it's more an ever-present than a far off force. I grew up about as far inland as it's possible to be in England - about 60 miles (I think the maximum is 70 miles). Where I live now I can drive coast to coast in around 90 minutes. It's always the sea to British people, never the ocean.
You beat me to it, Samuel. That aspect of England is very important and I’m sure affects everyone. Being in New England, it’s possible to be over 100 miles from the sea if you’re in, say, western Massachusetts or northeastern Vermont or even parts of northern New Hampshire. But even where I grew up in central New Hampshire, the New Hampshire seacoast was about two hours away, and Maine only a little further. Similar to England, most New Englanders also have a relationship with the sea.
Now, if one lives in, say, Oklahoma, that is not the case.
"This philosophy underpins, for example, the doctrine of eminent domain, which is in the US Constitution."
"Article 5."
Not exactly. The Fifth Amendment (not Article 5, which is about amending the Constitution) includes the Takings Clause ("Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.") This clause was intended to provide superior protection for landowners compared to the situation that they had experienced under English rule.
At the time of America's founding, the practice of seizing private land for use by the government was already part of English Common Law for centuries, originating from feudal practices. Guidelines for it were even included in the Magna Carta. In the 13 Colonies, compensation for seized land was often provided, but sometimes wasn't if the land was unimproved.
From "The Evolution of Eminent Domain" by Bruce L. Benson:
"By the American Revolution, government’s power to take property was clearly well established, a remnant of feudalism in England. For the most part, it was customary for the government to pay compensation, a result of the long struggle to limit the English king’s power, so such payments were clearly expected. Compensation was not always paid, however. In at least some colonies, no payments were made if the land was unimproved—an acceptable practice given that land was so abundant that property owners could easily obtain replacements at very low costs."
https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_12_03_04_benson.pdf
The Fifth Amendment did not create new permissions for the government to seize property (something that had been the norm since feudal times), but rather mandated protections for landowners not to have property seized without just compensation as had sometimes happened in the Colonies under English rule.
The Takings Clause's statement "nor shall private property be taken FOR PUBLIC USE, without just compensation," reflects the intention that the government should only exercise its power of eminent domain when it serves a clear and legitimate public purpose. The Framers intended this for situations where taking private property was necessary for the common good, such as building roads, bridges, or public facilities. "Public use" was understood at the time to mean use by a government (local, state, or Federal) for use by the public, not a transfer of ownership to private entities or businesses.
The Framers did not envision a scenario where the government could seize property from one individual and transfer it to another individual or business for profit. Eminent domain as it exists today, in which such a thing can be done, is a later perversion of the original intent of the Takings Clause and stretches the definition of "public use" beyond the breaking point.
"Income must not only be made 24/7, the amount must be maximized or else you are failing in your moral duty to make the world a better place."
In my opinion, the most dramatic and damaging capitulation to this mentality was when the concept of a Sabbath stopped being treated as important. If you read 19th century literature such as Mark Twain, you will find ample references to the fact that many people used to take the whole "no work on Sunday" thing very seriously. Even well into the 20th century, most businesses were closed on Sunday and "blue laws" restricting various types of business and sales (especially but not limited to alcohol sales) were common. (A few of these laws still exist today in a few states, but not nearly to the extent that they once did.)
Nowadays, most businesses (especially of the retail variety) operate for seven days a week. It has gotten to the point that (at least where I live) for a person entering the workforce in a low-level job, it is difficult to get a job that doesn't require working for seven days a week.
Sure, many of the better jobs offer 5-day work weeks, but those are generally treated as a privilege one must earn through college degrees, years of experience in lower-status jobs, or both.
Even ignoring matters of religious scruples, non-stop work all week just isn't healthy or beneficial. That can be backed up by medical (and especially psychiatric) science. People need some time to unwind and recharge. Sure, it makes sense that some people like police and doctors might need to work every day because of the life-and-death importance of their jobs, but that should be considered a necessary exception (an "ox in the ditch", to use Biblical terminology) and a sacrifice in the line of extraordinary duties, rather than the norm.
In my experience, even religious, church-going people tend to just shrug off 7-day work weeks as just being "what needs to be done to provide for yourself these days", almost if 2 Thessalonians 3:10 has overruled the Fourth Commandment.
Interestingly, even a secular, far-left rag like Vox recognizes that sacrificing Sabbath-keeping on the altar of 24/7 commerce isn't a good thing. Some quotes from an article published by it:
___________________________________
"Blue laws are sometimes opposed on efficiency grounds: The service sector, we are assured, must be open on weekends, so that other workers can obtain those services. It’s true that essential services probably must remain open regardless of the day. But brunch is not as essential as the emergency room. Nobody dies if they can’t buy a flat-screen TV on Sunday.
More to the point, this logic implies that service-sector workers should be a permanent second class of workers: rather than simply providing services, service workers are defined as existing to serve higher-status workers. Economists call the work “service sector” because it doesn’t produce a physical commodity; but increasingly, “service sector” seems to be used to denote social class."
"The social choice to protect a single day of the week for society to collectively step back from work and commerce and spend some time together should be endorsed across the political spectrum (except, perhaps, among totalitarians and libertarians; the former due to a distaste for robust private assembly, the latter due to an overzealous desire for the universal commercialization of humanity).
And yet blue laws continue to fall by the wayside. They are inconvenient for a busy society. But their inconvenience is precisely why they must be defended, and defended as a matter of legal requirement. People need to have their rest defended from the constant encroachment of busyness, particularly at the hands of business."
___________________________________
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/10/2/17925828/what-were-blue-laws-labor-unions